Bernie Sanders

Analysis: Them the People

Iain Murray grew up reading and writing by candlelight, not because he lived in premodern times but because he lived under democratic socialism. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other contemporary American advocates of democratic socialism lean heavily on the democratic part, which is at least in part a matter of marketing. To take their talk of democratic principle seriously requires forgetfulness and credulousness: During the last great uprising of democratic socialism in the English-speaking world — in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, where young Iain Murray, now a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was doing his homework by the light of coals and candles — the so-called democratic socialists embraced democracy when it suited them and anti-democratic, illiberal, and at times murderous modes of government when those suited their political agenda better, with left-wing activists such as young Jeremy Corbyn acting as tireless apologists for the Soviet Union, its purges and its gulags. In the United States, Noam Chomsky dismissed reports of Pol Pot’s genocide as right-wing propaganda; later, young Bernie Sanders and his new bride would honeymoon in the Soviet Union even as the Communist Party bosses were creating a new and more modern gestapo to put down democrats and dissidents. History counsels us to consider the first adjective in “democratic socialist” with some skepticism. But the socialism that reduced the United Kingdom from world power to intermittently pre-industrial backwater in the post-war era was thoroughly democratic. The policies that turned the lights out in London were not imposed on the British people by a repressive junta. And that is part of the problem with democratic socialism even as notionally presented by Sanders et al.: It is both of those things. In the United States, we use the word “democratic” as though it were a synonym for “decent” or “accountable,” but 51 percent of the people can wreck a country just as easily and as thoroughly as 10 percent of them. That is why the United States has a Bill of Rights and other limitations on democratic power. The United Kingdom, having a parliamentary form of government, does not enjoy such formal protections. A British government with an electoral mandate can run wild, as it did under the democratic-socialist governments of the post-war era, climaxing in the “Winter of Discontent” in 1978–79. “I grew up in the north of England,” Murray says. “It gets dark very early in the winters there.” A series of strikes by government unions left the United Kingdom without trash collectors, and garbage piled up in the streets; there were shortages of food and fuel as strikes crippled the transportation system; medical workers in the country’s monopoly national health-care system went on strike, with nurses, orderlies, and hospital staff abandoning their posts and leaving sick Britons with nowhere to turn for medical attention; the bodies of those who died piled up for months, because the gravediggers’ union was on strike, too; eventually, the interruptions of fuel and labor caused the electrical system to fail. Hence the candles. This wasn’t the first time: In 1970, a similar labor action had forced Britain’s hospitals to operate by candlelight. Think about that: A year after Americans had landed on the moon, Englishmen were undergoing medical procedures under neo-medieval conditions, in a medical world lit only by fire. This did not happen in Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, in Kim Jong-il’s North Korea, in Chairman Mao’s China, or in Fidel Castro’s Cuba. This happened in England, within living memory, only 41 years ago. Bernie Sanders was pushing 40 — old enough to remember, just as he is today old enough to know better. The problems of socialism are problems of socialism — problems related to the absence of markets, innovation, and free enterprise and, principally, problems related to the epistemic impossibility of the socialist promise: rational central planning of economic activity. The problems of socialism are not the problems of authoritarianism and will not be cured by democracy. Socialism and authoritarianism often go hand in hand (almost always, in fact), but socialism on its own, even when it is the result of democratic elections and genuinely democratic processes, is a bottomless well of misery. The Soviet gulags and hunger-genocide, the Chinese prison camps, and the psychosis of Pyongyang are not the only exhibits in the case against socialism, and the case against socialism is also the case against democratic socialism, as the experience of the United Kingdom attests. Murray, talking about his forthcoming book The Socialist Temptation at a CEI event in New Orleans, describes the inherent tension within democratic socialism. “The tyranny of the majority means you have no rights,” he says. “Early democratic societies realized that you had to have rights; how extensive those rights are is normally determined by how powerful the democracy is — one reason why the United States had such an extensive bill of rights so early is because the democracy was quite powerful. Socialists coopt the language of rights by introducing positive rights rather than negative rights — they will speak of the right to a job or the right to housing — but not the right to be left alone, which inherently contradicts democratic socialism.” The destructive nature of socialism comes not from its tendency to trample on democracy (though socialism often does trample on democracy) but from its total disregard for rights — rights that are, in the context of the United States and other liberal-democratic systems, beyond the reach of mere majorities. We have the Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, etc., not because we expect that majorities will reliably support and protect these rights but because we expect that majorities will be hostile to them. Hence the stupidity of complaints about our commitment to free speech protecting speech that is offensive, divisive, extreme, etc.: That’s precisely the point of the First Amendment — the other kind of speech doesn’t need protecting, because it is unobjectionable. Other rights — property rights and the right to trade prominent among them — also find themselves on the wrong side of majorities, constantly and predictably. But they are no less fundamental than the right to free speech, and they are no less necessary for a thriving and prosperous society. Socialism destroys societies by gutting or diminishing those rights. Doing so with the blessing of 50 percent plus one of the population does not make that any less immoral or any less corrosive. Conservatives understand the case against socialism. But in a moment of ascendant populism, making the case for keeping democracy in a very small box — recognizing the difference between useful democratic procedures and a more general majoritarian democratic ethos — can be difficult. Those who have made a cult of “We the People” have left themselves without a very plausible moral or political basis for telling Them the People to go jump in a lake when they demand immoral and destructive policies. But it was the people who ruined the United Kingdom with socialism in the 1970s, and it is the people who threaten to do the same thing to these United States today.

Thanks to Kevin D. Williamson for that sobering, yet enlightening piece on the dangers and evils of socialism.  Keep this in mind the next time you hear Bernie or AOC use the term “democratic socialism.”  Please consider this your “Read of the Day.”  If you read only one article here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!  Then, forward it on to your family and friends; especially those who are feeling the Bern, or are Democrats and get their news from the dominantly liberal mainstream media (i.e. the NY Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR/PBS, and the worst…MSNBC, etc).

Bernie Sanders’ strange history of comparing blue-collar workers to black slaves

Sen. Bernie Sanders is famous for railing against the 1 percent and lamenting the conditions of the modern working class. But early in his career, he went even further to cast those workers as victims of the system – using a curious analogy to repeatedly compare the plight of blue-collar workers to the horrors endured by enslaved African Americans. The Daily Beast reported earlier last month that the presidential hopeful had brought up slavery when discussing the struggles of the working class in nearly all-white Vermont in the 1970s. Fox News has obtained more examples of archival interviews the Vermont independent did in the 1970s that reveal Sanders’ comparison wasn’t a one-off, but an apparent belief that he repeatedly espoused. In an interview with the Brattleboro Reformer published Oct. 11, 1976, Sanders offered a harsh reaction to the news that a family-owned business, Vermont Marble Co., was being acquired by a Swiss firm. “What about the 800 workers?’ Sanders asked. “They were informed about the sale four days before it was publicly announced. They were sold to the Swiss. No one asked them how they felt about it. They weren’t treated very differently from the way black people in this country were treated when there was slavery.'” In the 1970s, Sanders ran twice for governor and twice for Senate unsuccessfully as the nominee for the left-wing Liberty Union Party. In an interview with the Rutland Daily Herald in 1978 on why he kept seeking office, Sanders brought up slavery again. “I believe that the vast majority of the people of the world and of this country are living in a slave-like condition not terribly different from what existed in this country before the Civil War,” Sanders said in the Nov. 5, 1978 article. Two years later, Sanders went on to run for mayor of Burlington, Vt., as a self-described socialist. The 39-year-old won by 10 votes in a major political upset that kicked off a long political career that could end with winning the White House in November. The Sanders campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about whether the senator still believes the conditions of the working class are similar to black people sold into slavery. A Sanders campaign official, however, sought to downplay the comments to the Daily Beast by explaining that Sanders has been a longtime opponent of wage slavery, and pointed to his work as a senator in investigating cases of poor working conditions. The official also noted that Sanders has called for the U.S. to officially apologize for slavery. The Daily Beast reported other interviews in which Sanders made comparisons to slavery in the 1970s. At the time, the population of Vermont was 99 percent white, and Sanders was a prominent leader of the Liberty Union Party, a socialist party in that state. In a 1976 interview, Sanders likened the sale of a private mining company to “the days of slavery, when black people were sold to different owners without their consent.” In a 1977 interview, Sanders said that “basically, today, Vermont workers remain slaves in many, many ways,” the Daily Beast reported. The newly unearthed clips obtained by Fox News reflect themes that are remarkably similar to those of Sanders’ current 2020 presidential campaign – minus the slavery references. In the Daily Herald interview in 1978, Sanders fashioned himself as a journalist and said his goal is to educate and mobilize working people to take the state of Vermont “away from the bankers and corporate executives who currently control it.” Sanders at age 37 had doomsday predictions, much like he does today at age 78. “I find the conditions of the world horrendous,” Sanders said in 1978. “And if present trends continue, I believe the planet may not survive another 50 years on its present course, and certainly not with any degree of individual freedom.”

Bernie truly is a lunatic.  To actually compare slaves who are taken forcibly and forced to do what they do, with blue-collar workers who can leave their places of employment to work some place else, and are NOT owned by the companies they work for is beyond ridiculous.  It’s an insult to actual slaves.  What’s frightening is so many millennials and younger voters are actually “feeling the Bern.”  Thanks to the team at Fox News that did this excellent investigative journalism for us.  No wonder they’re destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.

Gutfeld on Bernie’s comments about China

In an interview with The Hill, Democratic presidential candidate and avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said China had done more to address extreme poverty than any country in history. “What we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, OK. So they’ve done a lot of things for their people,” Sanders said. He’s right. According to the World Bank, the number of poor in China went from 880 million in 1981, to less than 10 million. But I wonder how they did that? Well, the Chinese “socialists” killed millions of poor people, so there’s that. Dead people aren’t poor. Just dead. They called that the “Great Leap Forward.” After that, they used a tool Bernie despises: capitalism. It was only the Chinese rigorously adopted free-market principles, private ownership and decentralization, that they transformed their economy from a house of horrors to something much more humane. The things that saved a billion lives in China are the things Bernie thinks harmed our country. The lesson is that those who scream about inequality embrace ideas that create more inequality. By replacing equal opportunity with equal outcomes, you end up with two classes: the poor and the powerful. Which happened in China. And it seems to be happening in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Baltimore, too. Of course, China went “whole Communist,” resulting in mass murder, religious persecution, forced abortion and famine. The number of dead in China under Mao has to be counted in the tens of millions. So yeah, praise is in order for China finally coming around to abandoning bad ideas. Maybe Bernie should do the same.

Yeah…  I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, Greg.  As usual, Greg Gutfeld nails it with his pithy wit.  Bernie is an unbelievable hypocrite.  He’s a millionaire with three mansions, who underpays his own staff…and that’s just for starters..  And, this all the while he’s preaching his socialist nonsense; how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Hey Bernie!  How about you sell one of your three mansions.  After all, you don’t “need” all three.  And, why don’t you donate the proceeds to the poor.  Lead by example!  Unreal…  And, let’s not forget that Bernie and his then fiancé had their honeymoon in Moscow…back when it was the Soviet Union.  Think about that…especially those of us who remember those days..  An American couple having their honeymoon in the Soviet Union.  Wow..  Bernie is someone who hates America, and how it was founded.   He hates capitalism, and yet has greatly benefited from it with his book deals and so on.  Remember that the next time you see angry, crazy Bernie talking about a “living wage” or some other similar socialist bs.

Greg Gutfeld: Sanders campaign staff wage complaints expose ‘socialist millionaire’ as ‘hypocrite’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., routinely slams corporate executives and makes calls for wage hikes, a stance that comes across as hypocritical thanks to a new report, according to Greg Gutfeld. The self-described democratic socialist is reportedly taking heat from campaign staffers upset they are being paid “poverty wages” and not the $15 per hour that is a hallmark of the Sanders campaign, Gutfeld claimed Friday on “The Five.” “He is, just by existing, a hypocrite,” he said. “He’s a socialist millionaire with three homes. Wealth is good for him but not for others.” Sanders reportedly has a net worth of about $700,000, but has made more than $1 million annually in recent years. He and his wife Jane own a house in Burlington, Vt., he purchased a $575,000 lakefront property in the Green Mountain State in 2016, and the couple owns a 19th-century townhouse in the District of Columbia. On “The Five,” Gutfeld said it is important that Sanders, “appl[y] the damaging policies that he wants to do to Americans onto his staff.” “But why won’t he?” he asked. “Because he knows when you raise wages… you have to reduce the number of jobs because ‘the pie’ doesn’t grow. “The purpose of the minimum wage is it’s the first rung on the employment ladder. The problem with the left is… they see the first rung as the last rung because they’re not economically competent.” In recent weeks, Sanders has called for a $15 per hour minimum wage on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and at campaign rallies in Rock Hill, S.C. and in Augusta, Ga. Adding to Gutfeld’s remarks, host Juan Williams claimed the wages Sanders staffers are making average out to $13 per hour. The staff is also unionized, Williams said.

Greg is definitely right..  Regardless of your personal politics, or party affiliation, Bernie is clearly a spectacular hypocrite.  But, then again, so are most socialist leaders.  They’ll want to impose their failed economic/political system on everyone, but themselves.  Socialism keeps people in mediocrity, except those at the very top who are millionaires (some even billionaires) with multiple mansions and so on.  And, that’s been true throughout history.  Bernie is just the most glaring, brazen example in American politics.  Kudos to Greg for calling out that self-righteous hypocrite on his bs.  For more, click on the text above.

Sanders confuses ‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ as he rails for unionization of video game industry

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders confused “revenue” and “profit” in supporting the efforts to unionize the video game industry. The U.S. senator from Vermont, who’s constantly trailing Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, made the embarrassing basic economics mistake on social media Tuesday. “The video game industry made $43 billion in revenue last year. The workers responsible for that profit deserve to collectively bargain as part of a union. I’m glad to see unions like @IATSE and the broader @GameWorkers movement organizing such workers,” Sanders tweeted. The democratic socialist appears to not differentiate between “profit” and “revenue” – the money company brings in before it deducts workers’ wages and other expenses needed to produce the product. This means that Sanders’ plea for workers to get a share of “that profit” was fulfilled as he was pointing out to revenue. While the video game industry indeed brought around $43 billion in revenue in the U.S. last year, or about $135 billion worldwide, the profit figure is multiple times lower than the revenue. This isn’t the first time Sanders appears to have confused revenue of a company with profit for making a political point. Earlier this month, Sanders crashed Walmart’s annual shareholders’ meeting, where he urged the shareholders to ensure living wages for the workers as “the American people are sick and tired of subsidizing the greed of some of the largest and most profitable corporations in this country.” While Walmart is indeed the company that brings the most revenue in the U.S., its profit put the company only as the 40th on the Fortune 500 list and is just 99th when ranked profit per employee thanks to its 2.3 million workforce.

Bernie is who he is; a socialist.  He had his honeymoon in Moscow, in the then-USSR.  The fact that he doesn’t understand basic economics shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Carol Roth: Calling socialism ‘democratic’ is like putting lipstick on a pig

When asked in a recent townhall by a Harvard student whose family fled Soviet Russia why he embraced the same type of socialist policies that had failed there and worldwide, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did what he always does. He deflected. According to Sanders, he isn’t advocating for that kind of socialism. No, he has dressed his philosophy up with a fancy moniker called “democratic socialism.” It’s a phrase that many on the far left have embraced as they push anti-free market propaganda and policies that seek to concentrate more power within the hands of a few political elites. They can call it “democratic socialism,” but socialism is so awful and flawed that no modifier can make it palatable — garbage by any other name still stinks. In fact, adding “democratic” to socialism is basically the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Socialism is a system set up for failure by design. The true definition of socialism is the government owning the means of production and having a few people — those aforementioned political elite- decide what’s in everyone else’s best interest. It stands in stark contrast to free markets, which give everyone individual choice and free choice to make those decisions for themselves. Supposing you had the smartest people around (which is not usually something associated with politicians) with perfect and trustworthy moral intent (also not something associated with politicians), the structure of having a small number of people decide how to allocate resources is still an impossible task. Even with the assistance of AI models or other technology, no group of people have the right incentives and knowledge to replicate the complex yet elegant work of the free market to efficiently and effectively allocate resources. With hundreds of thousands or even millions of products and services in the U.S., the task of allocating the right amount of resources and deciding how much of each good or service to create at any one time, who should create them, how they should be created, how they should reach potential consumers, pricing and other market factors is impossible for any group of planners. It’s why countries like India have seen famines during times where they had plenty of food in the country; they lacked the right incentives to get the product to the people who needed it. It’s also why pure socialism has failed every single time it has been tried with horrific consequences and isn’t known for amazing innovations, either. In his quest to soften socialism, Sanders has tweeted that “Democratic Socialism means democracy.” But, the “democracy” descriptor is no picnic either. Our founding fathers intentionally created a federal republic (or constitutional republic or whatever similar phrase you prefer) and not a democracy, because of democracy’s inherent flaws. As Ben Franklin so aptly described it, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Mob rule doesn’t make something a good, right or moral idea. Good intentions often lead to poor outcomes. Additionally, when the democratic label is invoked, it’s often a neon sign advertising that something is amiss. What we all know as “North Korea” brands itself as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (which also boldly claims on its website is where “all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression”). Similarly, East Germany prior to German reunification was known as the German Democratic Republic. Though I can’t speak for Sanders, hopefully, the rest of us can all agree these are not exactly the types of regimes we want to be emulating. So, if throwing “democratic” in front of socialism given the other countries who have used that over time doesn’t scare you enough, the concept of any degree of socialism should. We have let too much of that central type of planning seep into our system. And, when Sanders tweets, “My definition of democratic socialism is creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on top,” what he is advocating for is exactly that type of control where “what is in everyone’s best interests” is decided by the handful of elite politicians that comprise our government. Our country was founded on the concept of individual rights, including property rights and freedom. The government’s job was to protect those rights and our freedoms; and that’s it. Over time, that has begun to erode. The government has not only infringed upon our rights but also exceeded their powers by becoming intermediaries in markets and redistributors of wealth. From education to health care to retirement planning, whether by cronyism, nationalization or regulation, more government intervention has taken hold. And, everywhere the government has done so, costs have gone up and quality has gone down. Because whether you have a full socialist system, a mixed system or a democratic socialist system, interference by government will always produce inferior outcomes than in a free market, in whole or in part. Movement towards free markets creates prosperity and movement towards socialism thwarts it. We must come together to reject socialism by any name — in whole or in part — and work to find advocates who will undertake the difficult task of taking away power, decisions and actions from the elites in government and returning it to the people and the markets where it rightly belongs. Sanders and his ilk are dead wrong and as history demonstrates, any socialism — democratic or otherwise — will be entirely at our own loss. No amount of lipstick can make that pig of socialism attractive.

Agreed 100%!!  Well said, Carol.  Carol Roth is the creator of the Future File legacy planning system, a “recovering” investment banker, host of “The Roth Effect” podcast and the New York Times bestselling author of “The Entrepreneur Equation.”  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read anything today here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!…and then forward it on to all of your liberal/Democrat friends and family members.  Excellent!!!      🙂

Sander-nista? Archives show Bernie’s past praise of socialist revolutionaries

Bernie Sanders, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has long billed himself as a democratic socialist, citing the peaceful governments of Denmark and Sweden as his inspirations. But back in the 1980s, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders often endorsed a different strain of leftist government – praising violent socialist revolutionaries as well as economic policies like forced land redistribution, according to a Fox News review of archived footage and documents. Asked about the comments today, Sanders’ campaign highlighted other aspects of the now-presidential candidate’s 1980s-era views, saying he was prescient to warn against U.S. intervention abroad. “Our foreign policy will focus on diplomacy, not endless war,” the campaign said in a statement. In the 1980s, Sanders spoke of socialist Nicaraguan revolutionaries known as Sandinistas so often that one local paper called it a “favorite Sanders topic.” The Sandinistas overthrew a dictator in the Central American nation in 1979, and then began to impose socialist policies. That sparked a rebellion from Nicaraguans who opposed socialism, who became known as “Contras.” Tens of thousands were killed in the fighting. The Soviet Union and Cuba sent weapons and economic support to the Sandinistas, while the U.S. led by President Ronald Reagan sent arms and funding to the Contras. The U.S. involvement appalled Sanders. As soon as he became mayor of Burlington in 1981, his pro-Sandinista views began to make headlines in local papers. The Burlington Free Press reported in 1981 on a speech Sanders gave that year, stating that Sanders “exhorted his audience ‘to take control of your own lives’ as the ‘struggling masses’ did in Chile, Cuba and Nicaragua.” In 1983, Mayor Sanders penned a letter to Reagan slamming U.S. foreign policy. “I am appalled that you are using taxpayers’s [sic] money to destroy the government of a small nation,” Sanders’ letter read, according to the Burlington Free Press in 1983. By 1984, Sanders got Burlington to create a “sister city” relationship with Puerto Cabezas, a Nicaraguan city. Sanders later wrote that Vermonters provided “a significant amount of material help” to the Nicaraguan city through the program. The next year, the Nicaraguan government invited Sanders to an expenses-paid trip to attend the first formal inauguration of their president, Sandinista revolutionary Daniel Ortega. Sanders accepted, recounting in his 1997 autobiography that “I was – believe it or not – the highest-ranking American official present”. Also present at Ortega’s inauguration were Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Vice President of the Soviet Union Vasili Kuznetsov, and Yugoslavian President Veselin Đuranović, according to a U.S. Army report done for the Library of Congress in 1993. Sanders has separately praised Cuba, with recently unearthed footage showing Sanders recalling his excitement surrounding the Cuban revolution in the 1950s. “I remember, for some reason or another, being very excited when [former Cuban dictator] Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba,” he said, while speaking at the University of Vermont in 1986. “I was a kid … and it just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly rich people.” Sanders stated in a 1981 interview that he was not a supporter of the Soviet Union, which he called “authoritarian and totalitarian.” But Sanders also encouraged student exchange programs with the Soviet Union during the 1980s and spent his honeymoon there in 1988. While stopping short of full-scale Soviet-Cuban-style collectivization, the Sandinista government confiscated and redistributed many private farms and businesses in the early 1980s. Upon returning to Vermont from Ortega’s 1985 inauguration, Sanders praised Sandinista economic policies including land redistribution.

No, you are NOT reading The Onion..  And to think this raving socialist might actually win the DNC nomination should horrify every freedom-loving American.  What a lunatic!  For more, click on the text above.  Unreal..